Two Laws Tops

[barmar]

I was still standing right there, telling North not to lead a diamond. The club hit the table very fast; perhaps it's old age, but my reaction time just wasn't good enough.

Next time you'll know to bring handcuffs to the table.

[pran]

I was still standing right there, telling North not to lead a diamond. The club hit the table very fast; perhaps it's old age, but my reaction time just wasn't good enough.

I think Sven owes you an apology, Chris.

 

Taking for granted that chrism gave sufficient instructions at the table (and I do not dispute this) then:

 

the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

[blackshoe]

Next time you'll know to bring handcuffs to the table.

There was a time when I threatened to bring a nerf bat to the game. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I couldn't find one. B-)

[chrism]

the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

In principle I agree; however, this South is a fading shadow of a once fine player, who now has difficulty concentrating and is subject to frequent lapses. A PP would be pointless, serving only to punish the partners who make it possible for him to continue to enjoy the game. I shall know next time that I need to watch more closely.

 

Incidentally, the ruling is not 100% clear to me. The diamond had already ceased to be a penalty card, and a D lead was prohibited, at the point that the club was led OOT. I ruled that the prohibition remained in place, that the club was now a penalty card, and that the declarer could additionally require or forbid a club lead. An alternative would have been to let him forbid a club OR require a club OR forbid a diamond, with the club remaining a PC in the third case only. This seems to be one of those cases of double infraction that the Laws don't quite address, though of course I may be missing something.

[pran]

In principle I agree; however, this South is a fading shadow of a once fine player, who now has difficulty concentrating and is subject to frequent lapses. A PP would be pointless, serving only to punish the partners who make it possible for him to continue to enjoy the game. I shall know next time that I need to watch more closely.

That, of course, calls for leniency.

Incidentally, the ruling is not 100% clear to me. The diamond had already ceased to be a penalty card, and a D lead was prohibited, at the point that the club was led OOT. I ruled that the prohibition remained in place, that the club was now a penalty card, and that the declarer could additionally require or forbid a club lead. An alternative would have been to let him forbid a club OR require a club OR forbid a diamond, with the club remaining a PC in the third case only. This seems to be one of those cases of double infraction that the Laws don't quite address, though of course I may be missing something.

There is no doubt in the laws here and your ruling was as far as I understand quite correct: The prohibition against a diamond lead by North remains in force until a different player has had the lead, and in addition South now has an exposed club to be handled according to Law 50D (single major penalty card).

[barmar]

However, if he indeed has done so then the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

I think 90B8 is about intentionally refusing to comply, not about misunderstanding or having a senior moment.

[pran]

I think 90B8 is about intentionally refusing to comply, not about misunderstanding or having a senior moment.

 

Having "a senior moment" might be excusable, misunderstanding a clear instruction from the Director is not (because it implies paying insufficient attention to the game - Law 74B1).

Law 90B8 says "failure". This law is violated also when the failure is unintended or when an instruction is just ignored.